More Academic Anti-Three-Strikes Pablum

Just a School Yard Bully

Some time ago, we posted a piece on the "three strikes" approach to crime and punishment, here.  We argued that the fundamental concept is inherently just, consistent with Biblical truths on crime and the courts.  On the other hand we argued that it is possible for "three strikes" jurisdictions not to focus upon serious crimes against persons and property, only upon convictions for any crime, however minor. Such applications of the "three strikes" approach we believe eventually produce punishment that is inherently unjust (such as being jailed for life for painting graffiti).

We approve New Zealand's version of "three strikes" which reserves its application for more serious criminal offending by having its application restricted to a list of aggravated crimes which count as "strikes".    No-one in this country has yet been convicted of their third strike, although we understand there are about eighty or so on their second strike so it is only a matter of time before we register our first "third strike" incarceration.

Criminologists and academics are largely opposed (with some notable exceptions).  The underlying idee fixee of these folk appears to be that all crime is at root a social construct.
  People only commit crimes because of the situational and circumstantial environments in which they exist.  Change the environment and the criminal will reform.  To such Unbelievers (and they have to be anti-Christian at their core, or untutored neophytes in the faith) successively heavy penalties for repeat offending represents a doubling down on folly, for the criminal is not responsible for his crimes; society is.

The standard academic objection to "three strikes" is to take the final, third strike offence and measure the punishment against that crime in isolation, and complain, thereby, that the regime is harsh and inherently unjust.  The offending of the guilty is always minimised, along with the guilt of successive offending.  Here is the latest example, from TV3 News:

The ACT Party is challenging a criminologist who says the three strikes sentencing law is unfair.  The law is an ACT initiative and means a violent criminal gets a maximum sentence on a third conviction with no parole - even if they plead guilty.

Victoria University criminologist John Pratt has raised the case of 21-year-old Hastings man Elijah Whaanga, who was handed his second strike last month for two street muggings and jailed for two-and-a-half years.  Mr Pratt told Radio New Zealand Whaanga is "nothing more than a schoolyard bully" and hitting him with three strikes would be unfair punishment.

Nothing more than a schoolyard bully?  Unfair?  It's the self-deceit of such "experts" that is so offensive.  Their ideology blinds them to the granular realities of life.

But ACT president John Boscawen, a former MP who took the three strikes law through Parliament, says that's rubbish.  "The so-called schoolyard bully is in reality a violent young man with over 72 convictions," he said.  "He is exactly the type of criminal three strikes was intended to target."  Mr Boscawen says Whaanga's first strike was for two aggravated robberies, and his second and final warning was for another two aggravated robberies.

Twenty-one years old, 72 convictions, the last two being aggravated robberies.  Either the "schoolyard" bully who is now a career criminal needs to take responsibility for his own actions, or not.  Pratt clearly believes that Whaanga need not be held accountable.  Rather, his offending is nothing more than that of a teenager throwing his weight around.  Note the explicit minimisation of the crimes.  We can imagine the victims of his latest muggings lying there in pain while Whaanga runs off with their possession, thinking, "Oh, no problem.  It's only a schoolyard bully."

Which approach deals more honourably with Mr Whaanga: the criminologist, John Pratt or the "three strikes" regime?  Which treats him as a responsible, moral agent accountable for his own actions and their impact upon his victims?  Which insists upon respect for fellow human beings and citizens?  Pratt's approach does none of the above, but treats him as a victim--which serves merely to arouse a misdirected sense of pity amongst those steeped in the political ideology of guilt and pity.  But it also regards Mr Whaanga as if he were a being without moral responsibility and accountability--somewhat like a dumb animal.  Pratt thus actually treats Mr Whaanga with profound disrespect and disregard.  The three strikes regime, on the other hand, treats him with due respect, insisting he be treated as a moral being, accountable for all his actions, particularly his wrongdoing.

Moreover, the Pratt approach implies a great deal about the victims of Whaanga's "schoolyard bullying" (past, present, and those to come).  The implication is that the victims are part of the problem; they have indirectly caused the crimes.  They are part of an unjust society which made Whaanga what he has become.  It subtly implies that the victims are getting their just desserts. Neither the victims (past, present and even those to come) nor the recidivist criminal count for much in Prattean calculus. Reforming society along utopian humanist lines counts for everything.

Never mind.  We taxpayers are funding the salaries of John Pratt and his colleagues.  Ultimately, we are responsible for the dissemination of Pratt's false religion, because we, the taxpayers and citizens, fund it.  We begin to think that a "three strikes" regime for academic inanities might be the ticket.  Under this regime on the third strike of espousing a list of proscribed inanities, the academic would lose his taxpayer funding.  Whether the University would keep him employed out of its own income would be a matter for Victoria University.  At least we would no longer have to put up with the double imposition of not just being irritated by such errant nonsense, but also being forced to pay for it as well.